Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3024 (PNJ)

Vijay Bhadur v. Sarbati

2006-07-26

S.D.ANAND

body2006
JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J. - The claim for award of compensation, filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants) was decreed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the MACT") vide award dated 2.1.1993. The compensation awarded was Rs. 1,02,400/-. It was ordered to be payable by respondent No. 2 - Vijay Bhadur, the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. DIL-5205 (hereinafter referred to as "DIL vehicle"). The claimants allegation was that the impugned accident had been caused by respondent No. 10 by driving the DIL vehicle rashly and negligently on 11.8.1987. The deceased and few others were travelling by a Matador bearing registration No. HNH-4006 (hereinafter referred to as "HNH vehicle") which was proceeding from Kalanaur to Dadri. When the HNH vehicle had covered a distance of about four kilometers from Dadri, the DIL vehicle came from the opposite direction and hit the HNH vehicle. 2. The petition was contested only by United India Insurance Company (respondent No. 9 before this Court). All other respondents were proceeded ex parte. The plea raised by the United India Insurance Company was that the DIL vehicle was not insured with it. The liability to pay the amount of compensation was, accordingly, denied. The plea raised, in the alternative, was that the driver of DIL vehicle, was not holding a valid driving licence and further that it was also not a registered vehicle. 3. The Tribunal framed issues on point of accountability for the causing of accident, the compensation awardable and the liability therefor, the holding or otherwise of the driving licences by the drivers of DIL and HNH vehicles and also on point of limitation. It was held by the Tribunal that the impugned accident was caused by driver of DIL vehicle who drove it rashly and negligently. The claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,02,400/-. The award was passed only against registered owner Vijay Bhadur (appellant before this Court). The United India Insurance Company was exonerated on a finding that the offending DIL vehicle was not proved to have been insured with it. The controversy with regard to the driving licenses was disposed of as having become redundant in view of the fact that the offending vehicle had not been proved to have been insured. The controversy with regard to the limitation was also disposed of as redundant. The controversy with regard to the driving licenses was disposed of as having become redundant in view of the fact that the offending vehicle had not been proved to have been insured. The controversy with regard to the limitation was also disposed of as redundant. Along with that finding, it was also held by the Tribunal that the petition is within time inasmuch as the impugned accident had taken place on 11.8.1987; while the petition was filed on 16.9.1987. While dealing with the issue pertaining to limitation, the Tribunal noticed a plea raised on behalf of Vijay Bhadur appellant (registered owner of the driving vehicle) to the effect that the vehicle was indeed under insurance cover vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit R2). It was argued on behalf of the United India Insurance Company that the Insurance Policy aforesaid is in the name of M/s M.G.F. (I) Ltd., New Delhi which appeared to have financed that vehicle. The plea raised, in the context, was that Vijay Bhadur appellant would be deemed to have become registered owner of the DIL vehicle only on clearance of the loan amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 8 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and have carefully gone through the records. None appeared on behalf of the appellant before this Court. 5. In view of the fact that none has turned up on behalf of the appellant to address this Court, the only option is to cull out the plea from the grounds of appeal. There is an averment in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal had erred in law in not noticing the fact that the policy document (i.e. Cover note) indicates that the vehicle was insured in the name of Vijay Bhadur, but that vehicle was otherwise hypothecated with M/s M.G.F.(I) Ltd. 6. It may be noticed, in the context, that the appellant has also filed C.M. No. 2617-CII of 1993 for obtaining the leave of the Court to tender into evidence certified copy of Policy No. 4502010142 (Annexure A), Cover note No. 0686662 dated 1.3.1988 Annexure B) and Registration certificate pertaining to DIL vehicle Annexure C). 7. The culled out plea is devoid of merit. The controversy between the parties was decided by the Tribunal as per the material obtaining on the file. 7. The culled out plea is devoid of merit. The controversy between the parties was decided by the Tribunal as per the material obtaining on the file. The cover note produced before the Tribunal was in the name of M/s M.G.F. (I) Ltd. Appellant Vijay Bhadur, registered owner, did not figure anywhere in it. It pertains to the period during which the impugned accident had occurred. Presently, the appellant has enclosed, along with the application for additional evidence, a photo copy of cover note which pertains to the period 4.3.1988 to 3.3.1989. This document does purport to be in the name of appellant Vijay Bhadur. It also indicates that DIL vehicle, to which it is relatable, is under hypothecation with M/s M.G.F. (I) Ltd. However, it does not solve the riddle for the appellant. In order to bind the Insurance Company with the liability, it had to be proved that DIL vehicle was under Insurance cover during the relevant period and that the insurance had been taken out in the name of the appellant as registered owner of that vehicle. It is on proof of that fact only that it could be held that there was a privity of contract between the appellant and the Insurer. In the present case, the privity of contract was between the Insurer-United India Insurance Company and M/s M.G.F.(I) Ltd. The latter was, however, not impleaded as a party. As there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the Insurer, the former cannot be heard to argue that liability should have been imposed upon the latter. 8. In so far as the application for additional evidence is concerned, it does not deserve allowance. The photo copy of cover note enclosed therewith pertains to a period subsequent to the date on which the impugned accident had taken place. This document, even if brought on the record with the leave of the Court, would not improve things for the appellant and the grant of application would be an exercise in futility. The application for additional evidence shall stand rejected accordingly. 9. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by Vijay Bhadur (registered owner of DIL vehicle) is held to be devoid of force. FAO No. 604 of 1993 and the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant shall stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.